Sunteți pe pagina 1din 24

Government and Public Sector

Fraud in the public sector


a PwC Public Sector Research Centre publication

Contents

Introduction

1 The extent of economic crime


in the last 12 months

The profile of a fraudster

Prevent, detect, respond

13

Whats on the fraud horizon?

17

Conclusion

19

Methodology and acknowledgements

20

Contacts

22

Introduction

We are pleased to present the government


and public sector extract from our Global
Economic Crime Survey. The survey
scrutinised fraud and associated integrity
risks during a period of considerable
economic turmoil and investigated the
root causes and the way in which they
affect organisations worldwide.
As the economy has declined, both in the
UK and globally, new threats emerge. When
economic survival is threatened (either for
the organisation or for the individual), the
line separating acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour can, for some, become blurred.
In addition, fraud and other types of economic
crime have become a focus of criminal activity
in recent years; criminal organisations that profit
from fraud view the current economic conditions
as an opportunity, not a threat. While the private
sector has to date borne the brunt of economic
hardship, the public sector now seems set to
undergo a period of significantly reduced
spending and financial strain.

In this climate, it is essential that government/


state-owned enterprises evaluate the fraud risks
that they face and take action to manage these
risks effectively. Our survey revealed that the top
reason for an increased risk of economic crime in
the current environment is the fear of redundancy.
With severe public sector spending cuts expected
in the coming months, this risk is set to increase
further and organisations must ensure that they
are ready to face this challenge. It is important
that senior management take a proactive
approach to fraud risk management and strive
to create a culture of integrity and openness that
empowers all employees to do the right thing.

Survey participants
Over 170 senior representatives of government/
state-owned enterprises in 35 countries across the
globe from Argentina to South Africa completed our
web-based survey. Respondents were asked a
number of core questions on fraud and were also
asked a number of other questions specifically on
the fraud threats that emerge in an economic
downturn. Further details of the survey
demographics are presented in the Methodology
and Acknowledgements section of this report.
Note: In some cases percentages may total more or less than 100
percent as respondents were able to provide multiple answers.

The extent of economic crime


in the last 12 months
Figure 1: % of organisations reporting fraud in the
past 12 months
Government/state-owned enterprises
Listed companies

21%
37%

Private sector
Others

28%

31%

Globally, 37% of respondents from government/


state-owned enterprises reported that their
organisation had suffered economic crime in the
last 12 months; higher than in any other type of
organisation and the economic crisis has raised
the perceived threat level of a fraud taking place,
even higher.
This is despite the fact that only 41% of
government/state-owned enterprises had
suffered a decline in performance in the past
12 months compared to 62% of organisations
in other sectors, however with increased public
sector cuts on the horizon, the public sector
believes that fraud could become an even bigger
problem. This, in our experience, reflects the
vulnerability that government/state-owned
enterprises feel to external perpetrators of
economic crime.

In the UK, the number of government/state-owned


enterprises reporting economic crime in the last 12
months rose to 52% and an even higher proportion
(77%) believed that the economic crisis made
fraud a greater risk to their organisation.
The impending reductions in spending that will
cut a swathe across the public sector in the coming
months and years will only serve to heighten the
risks they face. There is no question that the public
sector generally is entering a new and difficult era.
Fears about job losses and achieving tough targets
may drive people to take drastic steps. All
organisations therefore need to be alive to the risks
and ensure that they are well-prepared for the
challenging future that lies ahead.

1
What kind of fraud is likely?
Economic crime takes on many different forms,
some more common than others. The table below
shows the types of economic crime suffered by
those respondents who reported experiencing it
in the last 12 months.
Over two-thirds of those reporting economic crime
suffered asset misappropriation. This type of fraud
is by far and away the most prevalent and covers a
variety of misdemeanours. Whilst it is the hardest
to prevent, it is arguably the easiest to detect.
Accounting fraud encompasses a variety of actions
including accounting manipulations, fraudulent
application for credit and unauthorised transactions.

Across the globe, 22% of respondents from


government/state-owned enterprises experiencing
economic crime reported cases of bribery and
corruption in the last 12 months. In recent years
there has been a global sea change in attitudes
towards bribery and corruption, resulting in
increased regulatory enforcement. This trend is
likely to continue as more territories introduce or
strengthen anti-corruption legislation and/or
strengthen enforcement actions in response to
global pressures, such as the UK Bribery Act which
introduces a new crime of failure to prevent
bribery. This means that organisations who are
unable to demonstrate that they have implemented
adequate procedures to prevent corrupt practices
within their ranks or by third parties on their behalf,
could be exposed to unlimited fines as well as other
collateral consequences.

Figure 2: Types of economic crime experienced by government/state-owned enterprises who reported


experiencing fraud in the past 12 months

69

Asset misappropriation
Accounting fraud

28

Bribery and corruption

22

IP infringement, including
theft of data

Illegal insider trading

Espionage

Money laundering

Tax fraud

Market fraud involving cartels


colluding to fix prices

Other

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% of organisations reporting each type of fraud in the past 12 months

Bribery and Corruption

Its not just money

Countries around the world are tightening


legislation in relation to bribery and corruption by:

Although our survey focused on the extent and


consequences of economic crime, fraudulent
behaviour extends further. Our experience shows
that unethical behaviour, such as manipulating data
to meet targets or excessive staff entertaining, is on
the rise. In certain circumstances, these behaviours
may be seen as acceptable, or even condoned by
management, but such attitudes can undermine
anti-fraud policies and contribute to a culture of
non-compliance within an organisation.

Criminalising acts of corruption, as signatories


to international anti-corruption frameworks
such as the UNCAC and the OECD Anti-bribery
Convention;
Investigating and prosecuting individual
executives, not just organisations;
Collaborating with other governments to
prevent transnational corruption;
Creating anti-corruption bodies, such as a
supreme audit board and specialised
enforcement agencies;
Creating effective legal systems for seizing,
freezing and confiscating the assets or
proceeds of a crime; and
Developing transparency in government
operations and public procurement, and
establishing enforceable codes of conduct
for government officials.

After analysis of patient data at a major hospital,


allegations were made that management were
manipulating waiting lists in order to meet
performance targets. Patients were being
removed from the waiting list without their
knowledge and records were being fudged so
that it appeared that patients were being treated
within the required timeline. The widespread
practice of this type of fraudulent behaviour can
undermine managements efforts to promote
ethical values throughout an organisation.

The profile of a fraudster

Who is committing fraud?


Addressing the question of who is more likely to
commit fraud and the circumstances under which
individuals may be tempted to cross the line can
help all organisations to focus their anti-fraud
policies in the right areas. For example, senior
managers under most pressure to achieve testing
targets may resort to unethical means to hit their
goals. Fear of redundancy may drive some to
commit fraud or a lack of adequate controls could
present the opportunist with the chance to enrich
themselves or others relatively free of the fear of
detection. All the contributory factors to fraud are
likely to increase in the public sector as a result of
a much tougher economic environment.

Within government/state-owned enterprises


around the world, fraud seems to be more of an
internal than external phenomenon. Organisations
that suffered from economic crime reported that
57% of perpetrators were internal and 37% were
external. However, it is interesting to note that in
the UK this trend was reversed with 52% of
respondents reporting that economic crime was
perpetrated by external fraudsters. This reflects a
perception within the UK public sector that fraud
is normally committed by external parties.
However, organisations must make sure that they
are not underestimating either the cost or the
collateral damage caused by internal fraudsters.

Figure 3: Who committed the most serious economic crime in the past 12 months?
57

Internal

39

Global
UK

37

External

52

10

20

30

40

50

60

% of organisations reporting fraud

Figure 4: Profile of internal fraudsters

24

Senior management

Government organisations

14

All industries
24

Middle management

42

49

Junior management

44

10

20

30

40

50

60

% of organisations reporting fraud (in the past 12 months)

The number of economic crimes committed by


middle management has risen sharply from 26% in
2007 to 42% in 2009 across all sectors. In contrast,
within government/state-owned enterprises, the
number of crimes committed by middle management
has remained steady at 24%. In the public sector,
junior management are most likely to commit fraud
(49%) but a significant number of crimes were
committed by senior management; more in the
public sector (24%) than in other industries (14%).

The Fraud Triangle

Incentive or Pressure
71%

Why are people committing fraud?


Fraud practitioners often point to three common
factors when fraud occurs (the Fraud Triangle).
First, perpetrators of fraud need an incentive or
pressure to engage in misconduct. Second, there
needs to be an opportunity to commit fraud, and
third, perpetrators are often able to rationalise or
justify their actions.

10

FRAUD RISK
Opportunity
15%

Attitude/
Rationalisation
12%

Probing deeper into the impact of these three


factors reveal that among the respondents who
believed that there is a greater risk of fraud in the
current economic environment:
71% attributed greater risk of fraud to
increased incentives or pressures;
15% reported that more opportunities to
commit fraud was the most likely reason for
greater risk of fraud; and
12% believed that peoples ability to rationalise
was the main factor contributing to greater risk
of fraud.

Whats behind these perceptions? In the public


sector the very real fear of unemployment is a
major pressure. The most commonly reported
factor contributing to these increased incentives
was that people are afraid they might lose their
jobs. This pressure is set to increase with the
expected cuts across the public sector in the next
12-18 months.
There was also concern that the current
economic climate makes targets, both for
individuals and organisations, more difficult to
achieve. It is important therefore that
organisations monitor performance closely and
triangulate sources of information to identify when
staff might feel under particular pressure.

% respondents who reported increased


incentive to commit fraud

Figure 5: Factors given by respondents from government/state-owned enterprises


as contributing to increased incentives to commit fraud

50
41

40

37

30
20

16
11

10
0

Fear of losing jobs

Targets more difficult


to achieve

For senior
management to
achieve desired
results

Bonuses not paid


this year

11

A lack of control?
Of those respondents from government/
state-owned enterprises perceiving greater
opportunities to commit fraud in the current
environment, 85% believed that staff reductions
had resulted in fewer resources being deployed
in internal controls. Financial difficulties force
organisations to reduce costs and explore
possible efficiencies. Staff reductions can result
in reduced segregation of duties and less
monitoring of suspicious transactions and
activities. This, in turn, weakens the internal
control environment and is often likely to result in
more opportunities to commit fraud. It is
important therefore that organisations consider
how they employ their resources and ensure that
sufficient investment is made in the prevention of
economic crime and in tools, such as data
analytics, that can help in the fight against fraud.

Pay, performance and fraud


Linking pay to performance is also likely to be a
possible driver of fraudulent activity.
Organisations therefore need to be aware of the
correlation between compensation structures and
a heightened fraud risk. According to the survey
results, public sector organisations with a
performance-related pay structure for senior
executives are almost twice as likely to have
reported fraud (44%) compared to those that make
no link between pay and performance (27%).

12

Currently, 48% of government/state-owned


enterprises reported that their compensation
structure for senior executives contained no
variable element linked to performance. As
expected, this is significantly higher than the
average of 16% across all industries but, as
performance-related compensation structures
become more common in the public sector,
appropriate controls are important safeguards.

Do you know who your employees are?


One area of real concern to employers is the
true identity of the people that they are
employing. Organisations are increasingly
finding that what were seen as trusted
employees have links to organised crime or
terrorist groups. Pre-employment screening
may reveal details of an individuals criminal
convictions but are these checks really rigorous
enough? Employees are often entrusted with a
relatively large degree of authority and autonomy
without the employer knowing enough about
their background.
The issue of employee checks becomes
particularly pertinent when a project is
outsourced to a third party. Government
organisations must ensure that any party
they contract with has the appropriate policies
and procedures in place to identify rogue
employees before security can be compromised.

Prevent, detect, respond

Although the majority (61%) of government/


state-owned enterprises had performed a fraud
risk assessment during the year, only 5% of
frauds were detected by fraud risk management
procedures. While there is an argument that risk
management may have resulted in mitigating
controls, the fact that the sector reported higher
overall fraud than other industries suggests that
assessments are not being performed effectively.
Robust fraud risk assessments are essential for
identifying potential fraud threats and
weaknesses in controls that create opportunities
to commit fraud. Government/state-owned
enterprises typically have challenging efficiency
targets that are often set by government policy.
Many of these organisations have been presented
with increasingly tough cost-reduction targets in
recent years, and these are expected to become
even more onerous in the current economic
climate. There is a danger that as fewer resources
are employed in the fight against economic crime,
more frauds will go undetected.

How is fraud being detected?


The survey suggests that the main factor contributing
to the high levels of fraud in government/state-owned
organisations is a lack of internal fraud prevention
know-how and/or fraud prevention procedures.
The fact that a relatively large proportion of frauds
were detected by accident (14%) reinforces this view
with just 5% being uncovered through formal
whistle-blowing procedures. 45% of organisations
detected fraud through informal procedures via tip
offs (both external and internal). This is higher than
the global average of 27% and perhaps attributable
to a lack of trust in formal procedures within the
public sector arising from the poor track record of
some organisations in dealing with whistleblowers.
Across all industries, internal audit proved to
be relatively effective, detecting 17% of frauds.
However, in government/state-owned enterprises,
internal audit was less than half as effective,
detecting only 8% of all frauds. Risk management
procedures in the public sector picked up less
than onethird of the frauds compared to their
counterparts elsewhere.

Figure 6: Detection methods


Tip off (internal)

31

16

Tip off (external)

14

11

By accident

13

14

Internal audit
By law enforcement

17

Fraud risk management

Formal whistle-blowing procedures

Suspicious transaction reporting

5
5

Government
organisations

Rotation of personnel

5
5

All industries

Corporate security

5
3

Other detection methods

14

10

15

20

25

30

35

% of organisations reporting fraud (in the past 12 months)


13

A comprehensive fraud risk assessment should:


Identify the potential inherent fraud risks;
Assess the likelihood and significance of
occurrence of the identified risks;
Evaluate which people and departments are
most likely to commit fraud and identify methods
they are likely to use;
Identify and map existing preventative and
detective controls to the relevant fraud risks;
Evaluate whether relevant controls and
processes are effectively designed to address
identified fraud risks;

Response: sending the right message?


Many organisations claim to have a zero-tolerance
policy for dealing with internal fraudsters but does
zero always really mean zero? Our survey shows
that in only 51% of reported frauds during the year
did the perpetrator face dismissal and in only 40%
of cases were civil or criminal charges brought.
In our experience, organisations are often
reluctant to bring charges against employees
because of the time and costs of developing a
case. But this attitude may mean that fraudsters
are free to commit their crimes again and again.

Identify and evaluate residual fraud risks resulting


from ineffective or non-existent controls; and
Respond to residual fraud risks.

Figure 7: Actions taken against internal fraudsters by government/state-owned enterprises

Dismissal

51

Civil action/criminal charges


were brought

40

Notify relevant regulatory


authorities

35

Warning/reprimand

23

Transfer

Other

Did nothing

10

20

30

40

% of organisations reporting fraud (in the past 12 months)

14

50

60

Are there other considerations when


deciding how to deal with a fraudster?
If the suspected individual is a senior executive or
a complex fraud has been committed, organisations
may be reluctant to take action, particularly if it risks
compromising service delivery. Across all
industries, 60% of internal fraudsters faced
dismissal but the public sector seems less willing
to use this as a way to address fraudulent
behaviour. Consequently, the lack of visible action
may unwittingly send the message to other staff that
this type of behaviour is tolerated by management.
It may also explain why official routes for reporting
fraud are used less by staff in government/
state-owned enterprises than in other sectors.
There is also the risk that employees who have
been disciplined by one department, but not
dismissed, may go on to work for another area
of government without hindrance and continue
their fraudulent behaviour elsewhere. To avoid
this, government bodies must ensure that
they are sufficiently joined up and share
information appropriately.

Collateral damage
The fallout from fraud goes beyond economic cost.
Our survey also investigated the collateral damage
suffered by organisations and asked about the
impact economic crime had on their reputation/
brand, employee morale, business relations, and
relations with regulators.
Most respondents do not see collateral damage as
having a significant impact on their organisation,
perhaps because it is very difficult to quantify such
costs. However, most damaging, according to our
survey, is the impact of fraud on reputation and
brand (reported as very significant or significant
by 38% of respondents) and employee morale
(reported as very significant or significant by
37% of respondents). Whilst it is impossible to
quantify the cost of such collateral damage, it
should be of real concern to organisations.
Negative media coverage arising from fraud can
put off not just employees, but also investors,
suppliers, customers and potential recruits.

When an external fraudster is identified, the most


common form of penalty is cessation of business
relationships (in 17% of cases). Criminal/civil
charges were brought to 40% of identified frauds.

Figure 8: Collateral damage as reported by government/state-owned enterprises

Reputation and brand

38
37

Employee morale
Relationships with regulators

28

Business relationships

22

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% of organisations reporting fraud (in the past 12 months)

15

The tone from the top


Those at the very top of their organisations report
less fraud than other employees, suggesting that
they may not be sufficiently aware of the full extent
of economic crimes in their organisation.
Fundamental to the fight against fraud is the
attitude and ethical stance demonstrated by those
at the top. If organisations want to get the tone at
the top right, senior executives need to be better
informed about the fraud risks they are facing.
Senior executives should ensure that they are
proactive in their approach to fraud management
and do not react only as a crisis hits. This failing
is highlighted by the fact that while 60% of
respondents to the survey were non-senior
management, they reported 74% of the economic
crime in the last 12 months. Is there complacency
on the part of senior executives with regards to
finance and operational matters or are they just
disconnected from what happens on the ground?

We strongly believe that senior executives should


take an active interest in fraud risks within their
organisation. By doing so, and by demonstrating
high standards of ethical behaviour, together with
robust disciplinary action where the perpetrators
of fraud have been identified, the right tone from
the top can be established. Conversely, senior
executives who appear unconcerned about fraud
within their organisation may, through a lack of
attention and focus, unwittingly foster
environments where certain types of fraud are
perceived to be permissible.
When the appropriate message from senior
management is not conveyed and/or reinforced
through appropriate actions and behaviours, fraud
can have a much more damaging impact on an
organisation. The complex cultural challenges that
arise in the fight against fraud can only be
overcome if the workforce has been equipped with
the right skills. A crucial part of this process
involves senior management empowering and
motivating employees to do the right thing,
because it is the right thing to do.
Non-executive directors, too, have an essential role
in setting the tone at the top and must ensure that
they use an organisations governance structure to
reinforce managements messages of honesty and
integrity. An effective audit committee should be
aware of fraud risks and take actions to ensure that
these risks are being appropriately managed.

16

Whats on the fraud horizon?

When asked about the most likely fraud threats


in the next 12 months, respondents from
government/state-owned enterprises identified
asset misappropriation, accounting fraud and
bribery and corruption. This is hardly surprising
since these types of economic crimes were, after
all, the most commonly experienced frauds over
the last 12 months. In addition to these however,
21% of respondents felt that their organisation
was quite likely or very likely to experience
IP infringement (including loss of data) in the
next 12 months.

The nature and extent of the data about


people that government organisations hold
makes them a key target for fraudsters.
In response, organisations must ensure that
they take the necessary steps to ensure that
they are well-protected against the most
common types of fraud and review their
fraud risk assessments regularly.

Figure 9: Perception of fraud in the next 12 months in government/state-owned enterprises


Asset misappropriation

33

Bribery and corruption

23

IP infringement including

21

loss of data
10

Accounting fraud
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

% of respondents

17

Conclusion

In considering where to cut costs, organisations


should reflect on the gaps within control
procedures that will occur as the result of
redundancies. Where there are fewer internal
resources, such as the internal audit function or
fraud risk management, to fight economic crime,
more frauds will go undetected. Our statistics
indicate that the public sector is trailing behind
the private sector in terms of the number of frauds
detected by internal audit or risk management.
Our experience in the private sector has shown
that the effective use of these tools can be an
important part of the fight against fraud.
Investing in IT techniques, such as data analytics,
at the beginning of a fraud risk assessment
will be of benefit if your department is
resourced constrained.
The survey revealed that within the UK, external
fraud is higher and globally, internal fraud takes
place more frequently. Regardless of which type
of fraud occurs, it is the individuals ability to
rationalise their actions in the face of the situation
they find themselves in that has increased the
amount of fraud taking place. Therefore we
suggest that an effective fraud risk assessment
is carried out which will identify potential fraud
threats and weaknesses. Our survey also
revealed that redundancies result in reduced
segregation of duties; indeed 15% of respondents
reported that more opportunities to commit
fraud were the most likely reason for greater
risk of fraud.

Regardless of the fact that more internal fraud is


being carried out, the risk assessment should
cover both internal and external threats and
weaknesses so all areas are covered.
We have also seen that zero tolerance does not
always mean zero tolerance, with organisations
often reluctant to bring charges against employees
because of the time and costs associated with
developing a case. If organisations are not
prepared to bring criminal charges against
individuals it will allow them to continue with
their activities, whilst sending out a negative
message to others. The tone from the top should
make clear that these activities will not be
tolerated once discovered and appropriate
action will be taken.
We also suggest that government departments
should be more joined up so when people do
transfer departments, appropriate information
can be shared about them.

19

Methodology and
acknowledgements
Table 3: Function (main responsibility) of participants
from government/state-owned enterprises

Methodology
The fifth Global Economic Crime Survey was
conducted between July and November 2009.
A total of 3,037 respondents completed the
online questionnaire; of these 177 respondents
were from government and public sector
organisations. The participants were asked to
respond to the questions regarding (a) their
organisation and (b) the country in which they
are located.
Table 1: Participating territories
Argentina

Australia

14

Malaysia

Mexico

Austria

Netherlands

11

Belgium

New Zealand

18

Brazil

Norway

Canada

Poland

Chile

Russia

Czech Republic

Singapore

Ghana

Slovakia

Greece

South Africa

Hong Kong and


China

Spain

Hungary

Sweden

India

Switzerland

Indonesia

Ukraine

Ireland

12

13
1

United Kingdom

44

Italy

USA

Kenya

Sierra Leone

Total

177

Table 2: Size of participating government/


state-owned enterprises
% organisations
Up to 200 employees

23%

201 to 1,000 employees

32%

More than 1,000 employees

44%

Don't know
20

1%

% organisations
Executive management
or finance

42%

Audit

23%

Risk management

6%

Advisory/consultancy

6%

Operations and production

5%

Compliance

4%

Security

4%

Others

10%

Table 4: Job title of the participants from government/


state-owned enterprises
% organisations
Senior executives
Chief Executive Officer/
President/Managing Director

40%
7%

Chief Financial Officer/


Treasurer/Controller

26%

Chief Operating Officer

2%

Chief Information Officer/


Technology Director

1%

Other senior executive

2%

Board member

2%

Non-senior executives

60%

Senior Vice President/Vice


President/Director

4%

Head of business unit

8%

Head of department

15%

Manager

19%

Others

14%

Terminology
Due to the diverse descriptions of individual types
of economic crime in countries legal statutes, the
following categories were developed for the
purposes of the survey. These descriptions were
defined as such in the survey questionnaire.
Economic crime or fraud
The intentional use of deceit to deprive another of
money, property or legal right.
Asset misappropriation (including
embezzlement/deception by employees)
The theft of assets (including monetary assets/
cash or supplies and equipment) by directors,
others in fiduciary positions or an employee for
their own benefit.
Accounting fraud
Financial statements and/or other documents are
altered or presented in such a way that they do
not reflect the true value or financial activities of
the organisation. This can involve accounting
manipulations, fraudulent borrowings/raising of
finance, fraudulent applications for credit and
unauthorised transactions/rogue trading.
Corruption and bribery (including
racketeering and extortion)
The unlawful use of an official position to gain an
advantage in contravention of duty. This can
involve the promise of an economic benefit or
other favour, the use of intimidation or blackmail.
It can also refer to the acceptance of such
inducements.
Money laundering
Actions intended to legitimise the proceeds of
crime by disguising their true origin.
IP infringement (including trademarks,
patents, counterfeit products and services)
This includes the illegal copying and/or
distribution of fake goods in breach of patent or
copyright, and the creation of false currency
notes and coins with the intention of passing
them off as genuine.

Illegal insider trading


Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or
selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or
other relationship of trust and confidence, while in
possession of material, non-public information
about the security. Insider trading may also include
tipping such information, securities trading by the
person tipped, and securities trading by those
who misappropriate such information.
Espionage
Espionage is the act or practice of spying or of
using spies to obtain secret information.
Financial performance
This can be defined as measuring the results of an
organisations policies and operations in monetary
terms. Typically returns will be measured in terms
of service delivery.
Fraud risk assessment
Fraud risk assessments are used to ascertain
whether an organisation has undertaken an
exercise to specifically consider:
(i) the fraud risks to which operations are exposed;
(ii) an assessment of the most threatening risks (i.e.
evaluate risks for significance and likelihood of
occurrence);
(iii) identification and evaluation of the controls
(if any) that are in place to mitigate the key risks;
(iv) assessment of the general anti-fraud
programmes and controls in an organisation;
and,
(v) actions to remedy any gaps in the controls.
Fraud triangle
Fraud triangle describes the interconnected
conditions that act as harbingers to fraud:
opportunity to commit fraud, incentive (or
pressure) to commit fraud, and the ability of the
perpetrator to rationalise the act.
Senior executive
The senior executive (for example the CEO,
Managing Director or Executive Director) is the
main decision-maker in the organisation.

21

Contacts

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Forensic Services

Ian Elliott
Partner, Leader of Government &
Public Sector Forensic Services Team
+44 (0)20 7213 1640
ian.elliott@uk.pwc.com

Andrew Gordon
Partner, Head of Investigations
+44 (0)20 7804 4187
andrew.gordon@uk.pwc.com

Tony Parton
Partner, Survey Leadership Team
+44 (0)20 7213 4068
tony.d.parton@uk.pwc.com

Join the debate. www.psrc-pwc.com


The Public Sector Research Centre is PricewaterhouseCoopers online community for insight and research into the
most pressing issues and challenges facing government and public sector organisations, today and in the future.
The PSRC enables the collaborative exchange of ideas between policy makers, opinion formers, market experts,
academics and practitioners internationally.
To register for this free resource please visit www.psrc-pwc.com

22

In the event that, pursuant to a request which you have received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as the same may be amended or re-enacted from time to time) or any subordinate legislation made thereunder
(collectively, the Legislation), you are required to disclose any information contained in this report, we ask that you notify us promptly and consult with us prior to disclosing such information. You agree to pay due regard to any
representations which we may make in connection with such disclosure and to apply any relevant exemptions which may exist under the Legislation to such information. If, following consultation with us, you disclose any such
information, please ensure that any disclaimer which we have included or may subsequently wish to include in the information is reproduced in full in any copies disclosed.
2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom) or, as the context requires,
other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

www.psrc-pwc.com